This is what i submitted, based closely to your suggestions:
"This Monument to Mr. Trump is a further disgrace that he wants to place on our great nation! There are numerous issues with this Trumpian Monument:
1. The sightline is irreplaceable. The Lincoln Memorial, Arlington Memorial Bridge, the Memorial Avenue Corridor Cultural Landscape, Arlington House will be blocked by this monstrosity. Placing a 250-foot structure on the deliberate axis between them destroys the integrity of setting, feeling, and association that gives those properties their National Register significance. The NPS itself has stated that sees an adverse-effect finding and argue that no mitigation in a Programmatic Agreement can restore a permanently obstructed view.
2. If something has to go forward, let it be in keeping with the entire area and memorials surrounding it. We need substantially different and real alternatives, not just mitigation. The Section 106 process requires the agency to explore alternatives that genuinely avoid or minimize adverse effects before accepting them. Argue that the Draft Programmatic Agreement is premature and that a legitimate “no-build” alternative and alternative siting locations must be analyzed before any decision document is signed. Try a 70-foot tall structure as originally envisioned by the designer.
3. Has NEPA been fully evaluated and enforced as it is intended to be for such federal projects? A project of this scale, height, and documented public controversy warrants an EIS rather than a simpler categorical exclusion, and the Section 106 process must be completed before any NEPA decision document (a Finding of No Significant Impact or Record of Decision) is finalized.
4. The Commemorative Works Act and the CRS finding that no previous president sought to build an arch here, and argue that a 1924–25 column authorization for two 166-foot structures cannot lawfully cover a single 250-foot arch that is fundamentally different in scale, form, and purpose.
5. Pedestrian and traffic safety at a high-speed traffic circle. FAA airspace risk at Reagan National, where the administration’s own feasibility study called itself a “limited review” and required a full aeronautical study before construction, should be studied as part of a full NEPA EIS Evaluation . The 1910 Height of Buildings Act, which caps most D.C. construction at 130 feet. Disruption to Arlington’s daily funeral services and the solemn character of the cemetery landscape. Stormwater, tree loss, and landscape disruption in Lady Bird Johnson Park.
You need to stop this monstrosity from moving forward, completely. IF there is enough support to build something there. Consider the above arguments and follow due process to enhance our historic monuments and not overwhelm or over shadow them!!!!!!"
Thank you. This is by far the best and fullest analysis of the history and the reasons for objecting to the arch I've encountered. "F*** Donald Trump" will have no effect as a public comment, but points from this piece are indeed substantive.
I object to the construction of an arch that will obstruct the view lines of the park area including the Lincoln Memorial and the Memorial Avenue Corridor Cultural landscape. This huge structure will obstruct the view from every direction, and spoil the character and historic intention of the parkland area. The view will be permanently obstructed and cannot be mitigated.
I request that you draft a no build alternative and find alternative locations.
Has the NEPA prepared a full environmental impact statement? I know that is required by law. The section 106 process must be followed completely.
No president has tried to build an arch at this location, because it is architecturally inappropriate and too large for the space.
I have visited Washington, DC several times with my family and would be very upset to have a structure of this height and proportion and incongruous style interfere and subvert with the solemnity of the cemetery area and the historic intention of the landscape and monuments.
I wrote and rewrote this so many times, with help. I tried hard to make sound less personal, but the more I thought about it the more personal it became. Also the longer it became 🤦🏼♀️
Submission:
I am submitting this comment in opposition to the proposed Triumphal Arch ("Independence Arch") at Memorial Circle, Columbia Island, within the George Washington Memorial Parkway.
I write as an American citizen from a family whose military service spans four wars and two family lines, and as someone who understands, personally and permanently, what these landscapes mean to the families of those who served.
My family's military service spans World War I through the Persian Gulf War. On my father's side: my grandfather served in the United States Marine Corps in the Pacific during World War II; my great-uncle, served in the United States Army across World War II, Korea, and Vietnam and is buried at a National Cemetery. My father served in the United States Navy during the Persian Gulf War and is also buried at a National Cemetery. On my mother's side, my grandfather served in the United States Navy in World War II, and his father, my great-grandfather, served in the United States Army during World War I.
My family did not stop serving when the wars ended. My grandmother stayed active, serving in both civilian and military hospital auxiliaries; while after retiring from the USMC, my grandfather became the ultimate civil servant, shaping the minds of the next generation as a high school teacher. My mother and I have each built careers in civil service across federal, state, and local government, in the conviction that public institutions matter, are worth saving, and that those who work within them are stewards of something larger than themselves.
The landscape this project would permanently alter is not a backdrop. The axis running from the Lincoln Memorial, across Arlington Memorial Bridge, to Arlington House was designed specifically to symbolize national reconciliation after our most divisive war. We are described as "one nation," and that sightline is its physical expression. The National Park Service's own Assessment of Effects has already found an adverse effect on seven or more National Register properties, including the Lincoln Memorial, Arlington Memorial Bridge, Arlington National Cemetery, and the National Mall Historic District. That finding is not a procedural formality. It is the agency acknowledging that what would be lost cannot be restored.
The NPS's own project language describes Memorial Avenue as an "Avenue of Heroes" celebrating "valor, sacrifice, and American heritage." Every structure along that corridor reflects that definition. The seven memorials placed since 1960 each honor a specific military service, unit, or group of veterans: the Seabees, the 101st Airborne, the Women in Military Service for America, the United Spanish War Veterans, among others. Across the bridge on the DC side, the WWII Memorial, the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial continue that same tradition. Every structure on this ceremonial corridor memorializes specific military sacrifice and service. This arch does not. It memorializes one living civilian who, by his own admission, built it for himself. It does not meet the commemorative standard of the avenue it would permanently dominate and by the NPS's own definition, it does not belong there.
A 250-foot gilded triumphal arch is not a neutral architectural choice. That form has a specific history: it belongs to emperors, to conquest, to the permanent glorification of individual rulers. The Arc de Triomphe was ordered by Napoleon. The Arch of Constantine commemorated a military victory and elevated an emperor. When asked who this arch was for, the President pointed to himself and said "Me." The words proposed for inscription, "Liberty and Justice for All" and "One Nation Under God," belong to the democratic tradition my family served. The form they are being stamped onto does not.
I am raising my son to love this country, to visit its monuments, its memorials, its museums, and to understand what they represent and what they cost. I want those spaces to remain impartial, enduring, and collectively owned. Not instruments of individual glorification for any living person, regardless of office. These monuments are living history. They invite those viewing them to find what their country means to them. While they mean different things to different people, they belong to us all and should not be the reflection of a single person.
I am not writing this in opposition to this country. I am writing it because of how much I believe in it, and because the people in my family who served and bled for it deserved better than to have the landscape that honors their sacrifice reordered around the vanity of one man.
Democracies do not build triumphal arches to living rulers.
I ask the National Park Service to fulfill its obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commemorative Works Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act; to require full congressional authorization; and to give genuine weight to the overwhelming public opposition to this project.
This landscape belongs to all of us. My family helped pay for it in ways that cannot be reimbursed. Protect it.
Feel free to use this either directly or as a starting point:
As a deeply concerned citizen of the United States, I urge the National Park Service to halt further progression toward a decision document until the profound legal, environmental, and historical flaws of this project are fully addressed. This project, as currently proposed, represents an unprecedented disruption to the nation’s monumental core and fails to meet federal statutory requirements.
Historic sightlines will be affected. This is not just some random plot of land; it’s a space specifically designed with a historic purpose and meaning as a memorial to reconciliation during the civil war.
Additionally, as noted by the Congressional Research Service, no president or congress has authorized a singular, 250-foot arch at this location. Relying on authorization from around 1924 intended for an entirely different structure which is distinct in scale, form, footprint, and purpose is a severe legal overreach when determining the legality (and lack thereof) of this archway.
Aside from history, it’s plainly illegal. The structure violates the 1910 Height of Buildings Act, which has protected character of DC for over a century by capping building heights at 130 feet.
I ask that you listen to myself and my fellow Americans pushing back against this illegal and unwarranted structure and prevent its construction to the fullest extent possible.
Well said, but you omitted the "threshold" breaking reason that this project is a no-go (as stated by the one brave commissioner who voted no on June 4). Its intended purpose is a triumphal monument in a location that must instead host, if anything, a somber, non-interfering memorial, one that does not denegrate the purpose of Memorial Circle (correctly named): to link the Memorial Bridge to Memorial Avenue. And since 1963, to not obscure the view of the Eternal Flame from several locations. It is a vainglorious insult to the living decendents of those interred at Arlington, and future graves yet to be occupied. Our country needs unifying efforts now; this is the opposite. Follow the law, as is being done by the team planning the Global War on Terrorism Memorial - this is the best way to select a site, and design a monument to the longest surviving republic on Earth (as Franklin said - if you can keep it).
I am writing to comment on the Section 106 Assessment of Effect for the proposed Triumphal Arch at Memorial Circle, and to state my strong opposition to the project as proposed.
My family has been in this country for nearly 400 years, since my ancestor Alice Budd emigrated from England in the 1600s. My fourth great-grandfather, Thomas Major Henderson of Rowan County, North Carolina, fought for our independence in the American Revolution. I also have family who fought on both sides of the Civil War. The sentiment behind the original design is what bridges the separation of the North and the South. The Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House face each other deliberately across the Potomac, joined by a bridge built intentionally low so that nothing would interrupt the view between them. It is imperative that the intent of the design from the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington Cemetery be kept as it is. That the United States of America is just that, reunited as one nation.
Placing a 250-foot structure directly on that axis would end that composition. These properties were designed around their locations, their settings, and the sentiment of bringing what was divided back together again. That is what earned them their place on the National Register. Thousands of visitors come to pay their respects to the fallen who served our country.
The Park Service's own Assessment of Effects reaches the same conclusion, finding the arch would diminish these properties' integrity of setting, design, feeling, and association, the very characteristics that qualify them for the National Register. I agree, and I urge the agency to treat that finding as more than a procedural box to check.
No Programmatic Agreement can mitigate this. Documentation, signage, and design refinements address harms that can be softened. A permanently obstructed view is not one of them.
I join the objections already raised by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Society of Architectural Historians, and the National Parks Conservation Association, and I would add what this landscape actually is: Arlington conducts roughly 6,900 military burials a year. It is a working place of mourning and honor.
America's 250th anniversary deserves commemoration. It does not require destroying one of the most meaningful designed landscapes in the country. I urge the National Park Service to uphold its adverse-effect finding and reject this location for the proposed arch.
I am writing to formally request that the National Park Service (NPS) deny the proposal for the 250-foot "Independence Arch" near the National Mall. As a frequent visitor and former resident of Maryland, I have a deep appreciation for the historic landscape, deliberate design, and spatial integrity of our nation’s capital.The proposed scale and location of this mega-structure pose significant threats to the very characteristics that make the National Mall a unique public space. I urge the NPS to cancel this project based on the following critical impacts:Disruption of Historic Viewscapes: A 250-foot structure directly compromises the monumental sightlines intentionally designed into the capital. It will severely obstruct the historic, open visual axis between Arlington National Cemetery, the Lincoln Memorial, and the core of the National Mall.Incompatible Visual Scale: The height and mass of the arch—compounded by the 60-foot golden figure—contradict the established design principles of the Washington skyline. Rather than complementing the surrounding historic district, its sheer scale dominates and diminishes the solemn dignity of the neighboring national monuments.Degradation of the Visitor Experience: The National Mall relies on a carefully balanced relationship between open green space and historic architecture. Introducing an oversized monument into this high-visibility area permanently alters the open, democratic character of the monumental core that millions of visitors travel to experience each year.The preliminary assessment by the National Park Service correctly identifies these severe adverse effects on our historic viewscapes. For these reasons, I request that the agency uphold its stewardship obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act and deny permission for the arch.Thank you for your time and your continued commitment to preserving our shared national heritage.
Done!
This is what i submitted, based closely to your suggestions:
"This Monument to Mr. Trump is a further disgrace that he wants to place on our great nation! There are numerous issues with this Trumpian Monument:
1. The sightline is irreplaceable. The Lincoln Memorial, Arlington Memorial Bridge, the Memorial Avenue Corridor Cultural Landscape, Arlington House will be blocked by this monstrosity. Placing a 250-foot structure on the deliberate axis between them destroys the integrity of setting, feeling, and association that gives those properties their National Register significance. The NPS itself has stated that sees an adverse-effect finding and argue that no mitigation in a Programmatic Agreement can restore a permanently obstructed view.
2. If something has to go forward, let it be in keeping with the entire area and memorials surrounding it. We need substantially different and real alternatives, not just mitigation. The Section 106 process requires the agency to explore alternatives that genuinely avoid or minimize adverse effects before accepting them. Argue that the Draft Programmatic Agreement is premature and that a legitimate “no-build” alternative and alternative siting locations must be analyzed before any decision document is signed. Try a 70-foot tall structure as originally envisioned by the designer.
3. Has NEPA been fully evaluated and enforced as it is intended to be for such federal projects? A project of this scale, height, and documented public controversy warrants an EIS rather than a simpler categorical exclusion, and the Section 106 process must be completed before any NEPA decision document (a Finding of No Significant Impact or Record of Decision) is finalized.
4. The Commemorative Works Act and the CRS finding that no previous president sought to build an arch here, and argue that a 1924–25 column authorization for two 166-foot structures cannot lawfully cover a single 250-foot arch that is fundamentally different in scale, form, and purpose.
5. Pedestrian and traffic safety at a high-speed traffic circle. FAA airspace risk at Reagan National, where the administration’s own feasibility study called itself a “limited review” and required a full aeronautical study before construction, should be studied as part of a full NEPA EIS Evaluation . The 1910 Height of Buildings Act, which caps most D.C. construction at 130 feet. Disruption to Arlington’s daily funeral services and the solemn character of the cemetery landscape. Stormwater, tree loss, and landscape disruption in Lady Bird Johnson Park.
You need to stop this monstrosity from moving forward, completely. IF there is enough support to build something there. Consider the above arguments and follow due process to enhance our historic monuments and not overwhelm or over shadow them!!!!!!"
Extraordinary, thank you!
Do you mind if I use this as my comment? It is well written.
sure. I just altered what Dad provided to make it more a little more personal.
Thanks!
Well done. Thank you.
Thank you. This is by far the best and fullest analysis of the history and the reasons for objecting to the arch I've encountered. "F*** Donald Trump" will have no effect as a public comment, but points from this piece are indeed substantive.
Here is my submission.
I object to the construction of an arch that will obstruct the view lines of the park area including the Lincoln Memorial and the Memorial Avenue Corridor Cultural landscape. This huge structure will obstruct the view from every direction, and spoil the character and historic intention of the parkland area. The view will be permanently obstructed and cannot be mitigated.
I request that you draft a no build alternative and find alternative locations.
Has the NEPA prepared a full environmental impact statement? I know that is required by law. The section 106 process must be followed completely.
No president has tried to build an arch at this location, because it is architecturally inappropriate and too large for the space.
I have visited Washington, DC several times with my family and would be very upset to have a structure of this height and proportion and incongruous style interfere and subvert with the solemnity of the cemetery area and the historic intention of the landscape and monuments.
Done!
I wrote and rewrote this so many times, with help. I tried hard to make sound less personal, but the more I thought about it the more personal it became. Also the longer it became 🤦🏼♀️
Submission:
I am submitting this comment in opposition to the proposed Triumphal Arch ("Independence Arch") at Memorial Circle, Columbia Island, within the George Washington Memorial Parkway.
I write as an American citizen from a family whose military service spans four wars and two family lines, and as someone who understands, personally and permanently, what these landscapes mean to the families of those who served.
My family's military service spans World War I through the Persian Gulf War. On my father's side: my grandfather served in the United States Marine Corps in the Pacific during World War II; my great-uncle, served in the United States Army across World War II, Korea, and Vietnam and is buried at a National Cemetery. My father served in the United States Navy during the Persian Gulf War and is also buried at a National Cemetery. On my mother's side, my grandfather served in the United States Navy in World War II, and his father, my great-grandfather, served in the United States Army during World War I.
My family did not stop serving when the wars ended. My grandmother stayed active, serving in both civilian and military hospital auxiliaries; while after retiring from the USMC, my grandfather became the ultimate civil servant, shaping the minds of the next generation as a high school teacher. My mother and I have each built careers in civil service across federal, state, and local government, in the conviction that public institutions matter, are worth saving, and that those who work within them are stewards of something larger than themselves.
The landscape this project would permanently alter is not a backdrop. The axis running from the Lincoln Memorial, across Arlington Memorial Bridge, to Arlington House was designed specifically to symbolize national reconciliation after our most divisive war. We are described as "one nation," and that sightline is its physical expression. The National Park Service's own Assessment of Effects has already found an adverse effect on seven or more National Register properties, including the Lincoln Memorial, Arlington Memorial Bridge, Arlington National Cemetery, and the National Mall Historic District. That finding is not a procedural formality. It is the agency acknowledging that what would be lost cannot be restored.
The NPS's own project language describes Memorial Avenue as an "Avenue of Heroes" celebrating "valor, sacrifice, and American heritage." Every structure along that corridor reflects that definition. The seven memorials placed since 1960 each honor a specific military service, unit, or group of veterans: the Seabees, the 101st Airborne, the Women in Military Service for America, the United Spanish War Veterans, among others. Across the bridge on the DC side, the WWII Memorial, the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial continue that same tradition. Every structure on this ceremonial corridor memorializes specific military sacrifice and service. This arch does not. It memorializes one living civilian who, by his own admission, built it for himself. It does not meet the commemorative standard of the avenue it would permanently dominate and by the NPS's own definition, it does not belong there.
A 250-foot gilded triumphal arch is not a neutral architectural choice. That form has a specific history: it belongs to emperors, to conquest, to the permanent glorification of individual rulers. The Arc de Triomphe was ordered by Napoleon. The Arch of Constantine commemorated a military victory and elevated an emperor. When asked who this arch was for, the President pointed to himself and said "Me." The words proposed for inscription, "Liberty and Justice for All" and "One Nation Under God," belong to the democratic tradition my family served. The form they are being stamped onto does not.
I am raising my son to love this country, to visit its monuments, its memorials, its museums, and to understand what they represent and what they cost. I want those spaces to remain impartial, enduring, and collectively owned. Not instruments of individual glorification for any living person, regardless of office. These monuments are living history. They invite those viewing them to find what their country means to them. While they mean different things to different people, they belong to us all and should not be the reflection of a single person.
I am not writing this in opposition to this country. I am writing it because of how much I believe in it, and because the people in my family who served and bled for it deserved better than to have the landscape that honors their sacrifice reordered around the vanity of one man.
Democracies do not build triumphal arches to living rulers.
I ask the National Park Service to fulfill its obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commemorative Works Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act; to require full congressional authorization; and to give genuine weight to the overwhelming public opposition to this project.
This landscape belongs to all of us. My family helped pay for it in ways that cannot be reimbursed. Protect it.
Feel free to use this either directly or as a starting point:
As a deeply concerned citizen of the United States, I urge the National Park Service to halt further progression toward a decision document until the profound legal, environmental, and historical flaws of this project are fully addressed. This project, as currently proposed, represents an unprecedented disruption to the nation’s monumental core and fails to meet federal statutory requirements.
Historic sightlines will be affected. This is not just some random plot of land; it’s a space specifically designed with a historic purpose and meaning as a memorial to reconciliation during the civil war.
Additionally, as noted by the Congressional Research Service, no president or congress has authorized a singular, 250-foot arch at this location. Relying on authorization from around 1924 intended for an entirely different structure which is distinct in scale, form, footprint, and purpose is a severe legal overreach when determining the legality (and lack thereof) of this archway.
Aside from history, it’s plainly illegal. The structure violates the 1910 Height of Buildings Act, which has protected character of DC for over a century by capping building heights at 130 feet.
I ask that you listen to myself and my fellow Americans pushing back against this illegal and unwarranted structure and prevent its construction to the fullest extent possible.
Well said, but you omitted the "threshold" breaking reason that this project is a no-go (as stated by the one brave commissioner who voted no on June 4). Its intended purpose is a triumphal monument in a location that must instead host, if anything, a somber, non-interfering memorial, one that does not denegrate the purpose of Memorial Circle (correctly named): to link the Memorial Bridge to Memorial Avenue. And since 1963, to not obscure the view of the Eternal Flame from several locations. It is a vainglorious insult to the living decendents of those interred at Arlington, and future graves yet to be occupied. Our country needs unifying efforts now; this is the opposite. Follow the law, as is being done by the team planning the Global War on Terrorism Memorial - this is the best way to select a site, and design a monument to the longest surviving republic on Earth (as Franklin said - if you can keep it).
Thank you for this very helpful information
Thank you for the detailed submission information.
thank you for providing this information. I have sent my comments opposing this project
Thank you for the resource and information. I have also submitted my objection.
Thanks for the info. Comment submitted.
Mission Complete! Sent my letter today.
Here is what I wrote:
To the National Park Service:
I am writing to comment on the Section 106 Assessment of Effect for the proposed Triumphal Arch at Memorial Circle, and to state my strong opposition to the project as proposed.
My family has been in this country for nearly 400 years, since my ancestor Alice Budd emigrated from England in the 1600s. My fourth great-grandfather, Thomas Major Henderson of Rowan County, North Carolina, fought for our independence in the American Revolution. I also have family who fought on both sides of the Civil War. The sentiment behind the original design is what bridges the separation of the North and the South. The Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House face each other deliberately across the Potomac, joined by a bridge built intentionally low so that nothing would interrupt the view between them. It is imperative that the intent of the design from the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington Cemetery be kept as it is. That the United States of America is just that, reunited as one nation.
Placing a 250-foot structure directly on that axis would end that composition. These properties were designed around their locations, their settings, and the sentiment of bringing what was divided back together again. That is what earned them their place on the National Register. Thousands of visitors come to pay their respects to the fallen who served our country.
The Park Service's own Assessment of Effects reaches the same conclusion, finding the arch would diminish these properties' integrity of setting, design, feeling, and association, the very characteristics that qualify them for the National Register. I agree, and I urge the agency to treat that finding as more than a procedural box to check.
No Programmatic Agreement can mitigate this. Documentation, signage, and design refinements address harms that can be softened. A permanently obstructed view is not one of them.
I join the objections already raised by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Society of Architectural Historians, and the National Parks Conservation Association, and I would add what this landscape actually is: Arlington conducts roughly 6,900 military burials a year. It is a working place of mourning and honor.
America's 250th anniversary deserves commemoration. It does not require destroying one of the most meaningful designed landscapes in the country. I urge the National Park Service to uphold its adverse-effect finding and reject this location for the proposed arch.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
The online form was as easy as could be. Thanks for publishing this article
Thank you, I have submitted my objection.
Done. Comment below:
I am writing to formally request that the National Park Service (NPS) deny the proposal for the 250-foot "Independence Arch" near the National Mall. As a frequent visitor and former resident of Maryland, I have a deep appreciation for the historic landscape, deliberate design, and spatial integrity of our nation’s capital.The proposed scale and location of this mega-structure pose significant threats to the very characteristics that make the National Mall a unique public space. I urge the NPS to cancel this project based on the following critical impacts:Disruption of Historic Viewscapes: A 250-foot structure directly compromises the monumental sightlines intentionally designed into the capital. It will severely obstruct the historic, open visual axis between Arlington National Cemetery, the Lincoln Memorial, and the core of the National Mall.Incompatible Visual Scale: The height and mass of the arch—compounded by the 60-foot golden figure—contradict the established design principles of the Washington skyline. Rather than complementing the surrounding historic district, its sheer scale dominates and diminishes the solemn dignity of the neighboring national monuments.Degradation of the Visitor Experience: The National Mall relies on a carefully balanced relationship between open green space and historic architecture. Introducing an oversized monument into this high-visibility area permanently alters the open, democratic character of the monumental core that millions of visitors travel to experience each year.The preliminary assessment by the National Park Service correctly identifies these severe adverse effects on our historic viewscapes. For these reasons, I request that the agency uphold its stewardship obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act and deny permission for the arch.Thank you for your time and your continued commitment to preserving our shared national heritage.
Done! Thanks for enabling our voices.